posted at 2:41 pm on October 4, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Ah, the argument by analogy — its potential for backfire knows few limits. After attorneys for Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett, a first-term Republican vying for re-election, suggested that same-sex marriage would be the equivalent of allowing 12-year-olds to marry, Corbett tried to distance himself from the remarks. “I think a much better analogy,” Corbett told WHP-TV in Harrisburg, “would have been brother and sister, don’t you?”

“I’m going to leave the comments to you and your team,” the interviewer says with a laugh, refusing to get drawn into the what she clearly knew would be an eruption of outrage. And of course it followed soon after:

Mark Aronchick, a lawyer for the plaintiffs in that case, called Corbett’s remarks “insensitive, insulting and plainly wrong.”

“In other words, some kind of incestuous relationship,” Aronchick said. “He’s just out of touch on this one. Gay people marry for the same reasons straight people do — to express their love and to declare their commitment before friends and family.”

A Corbett spokesman offered no immediate comment Friday morning.

Ted Martin with Equality Pennsylvania, which advocates on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, called the governor’s remarks “shocking and hurtful” and asked him to apologize.

The replacement analogy was unfortunate politically, and it’s not even defensible philosophically. The issue of incest has nothing to do with the model of marriage. Why not stick to arguments that focus on the model itself?

The West has produced a milleniums-long model of marriage that has allowed for stable Western societies that are based on the procreative family structure, one man and one woman. It has also produced objective injustices around that model (bans on interracial marriage, and no-fault divorce on demand) but over the long haul has managed to hold that definition across many eras of changing mores. Partnered with full tolerance for other non-marriage cohabitation models, there isn’t any reason to redefine it to remove barriers simply on the basis of making people happy — although Pennsylvania voters are free to change public policy any way they choose.

Had Corbett just stuck to the latter point, he’d have been on firmer ground:

Corbett, a former federal prosecutor and two-term state attorney general, also said he does not think a pending legal challenge to Pennsylvania’s ban on same-sex marriage belongs in federal court.

“The Supreme Court left it up to the states to determine under their laws as to what is and isn’t a marriage,” Corbett said. “The federal court shouldn’t even be involved in this. But if they say they are, then they’re going to make a determination whether the state has the right to determine that a marriage is only between a man and a woman and not between two individuals of the same sex.”

That principle is worth defending in court no matter what one thinks of same-sex marriage. However, if an analogy has to be used, polygamy is the obvious choice. If the state can authorize same-sex marriage (and states obviously can), why stop at the two-person model? If the argument is that the state has no business picking and choosing what kind of relationships it should certify as valid marriages and that to do so is discriminatory (as activists usually argue instead in order to shame opponents), then what about plural marriages? After all, some religions represented in the US either tolerate or actively encourage such arrangements, which makes it closer to a First Amendment core issue than a hazy Fourteenth Amendment issue. Isn’t drawing the line at the two-person model just as discriminatory and arbitrary as drawing it at the heterosexual model?

Don’t expect that argument to win too many debates with the activists, but at least it’s a better political argument to make than relating same-sex marriage to incest — a lesson social conservatives should have learned years ago.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

The West has produced a milleniums-long model of marriage that has allowed for stable Western societies that are based on the procreative family structure, one man and one woman.

Well then Ed the sister/brother analogy is a good one then. The only reason to disallow a sister and a brother to marry is the genetic component and the moral one. The moral one is subjective as seen by the homosexual debate. The genetic component can be argued away by the fact that marriage has been successfully argued that it is about partnership and NOT procreation. I think that that the incest analogy is quite good, especially when you claim that morality is subjective to the person and the society.

Don’t expect that argument to win too many debates with the activists, but at least it’s a better political argument to make than relating same-sex marriage to incest — a lesson social conservatives should have learned years ago.

Why because activists say so, and they move the goal post based on their morals?

“In other words, some kind of incestuous relationship,” Aronchick said. “He’s just out of touch on this one. Gay people marry for the same reasons straight people do — to express their love and to declare their commitment before friends and family.”

Marriage is about protecting the children from the human nature of adults to not be mature enough stay together and be there to provide for their children and raise them up properly.
FAIL.
Actually gay relationships in my view are worse than incestuous ones. Incestuous ones actually have the opportunity to at least create life. Although it has the risk that the life has higher opportunity for genetic problems.
Gays distribute diseases with absolutely no chance of creating life.

On top of that, Corbett is taking federal money for Medicaid expansion under some BS conditions that will never hold up…on his own authority – without seeking approval from the legislature. I guess he figures people who support big Medicaid hand-outs might fall in in love with him.

I’m voting Libertarian for governor next year.
Maybe that means we’ll wind up with a Democrat, but at least the embarrassing bonehead sellout in the governor’s mansion won’t have a (R) after his/her name.

Geez, Corbett, when the left desperately needs a squirrel, don’t run out into traffic carrying a peanut…

This guy already had bigger issues before saying this. If anybody halfway serious tried to primary him, they’d win fairly easily and have a good chance of saving our chances in that race. Maybe this will be the last straw that forces just that to happen.

“In other words, some kind of incestuous relationship,” Aronchick said.

Excuse me. “Incestuous” is a pejorative meant to denigrate, demean, and turn into second class citizens two people just because of who they love. Let’s just say if you fall in love with your brother or sister, you’re “fun”. Because no one chooses who they love. It just happens.

The replacement analogy was unfortunate politically, and it’s not even defensible philosophically. The issue of incest has nothing to do with the model of marriage. Why not stick to arguments that focus on the model itself?

Really, really tired of trying not to offend every little grievance monkey. So he offended that segment of the populace that lives to be offended. Why bother to parse out where it all went rhetorically wrong? They’re only going to squeeze through another narrow alley-way in the justification maze to seize that which you have bled for.

No, it’s not the equivalent of brother and sister marrying. Not even close. Now if you want to make the case that redefining marriage as being between merely two individuals and not strictly a man and a woman could eventually open the door to brothers and sisters marrying, that’s a fair argument.

Given that 1) “morality” was shot to hell as a justification for prohibiting sexual conduct in Lawrence v. Texas (and again for same sex marriages), 2) two gay brothers or two gay sisters can’t reproduced biologically and 3) modern technology (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) eliminates inability to socialize with others (unlike, say the hills of WVA), then the 3 main legal reasons to make incest illegal, and thus ban incests marriages, have fallen away.

Huh? Yes of course it does. Don’t dress it up with modern-day concepts like “power imbalance” or what have you–the entire reason why incest is taboo in most cultures is because of the increased risk of genetic diseases in children born of incest. The purpose of marriage is likewise to ensure a healthy and safe environment for bearing and raising children. If we insist on eliminating child-raising as the purpose of marriage, then marriage becomes just another contract between adults, at which point what justification is there to forbid it to siblings? There are financial benefits to marriage, there is no objective basis to deny two brothers the right to join in wedlock, therefore they have a federal right to be married; that’s how the Court’s reasoning will go, when this is inevitably adjudicated 10 years from now.

On top of that, Corbett is taking federal money for Medicaid expansion under some BS conditions that will never hold up…on his own authority – without seeking approval from the legislature. I guess he figures people who support big Medicaid hand-outs might fall in in love with him.

I’m voting Libertarian for governor next year.
Maybe that means we’ll wind up with a Democrat, but at least the embarrassing bonehead sellout in the governor’s mansion won’t have a (R) after his/her name.

DRayRaven on October 4, 2013 at 2:51 PM

So do I. Corbett has been a major disappointment as governor. I don’t know what I’ll do regarding voting next year, but I really don’t want to see Attorney General Kathleen Kane get in. She can’t help herself with the extreme Dem tendencies she’s showing even now.

“In other words, some kind of incestuous relationship,” Aronchick said. “He’s just out of touch on this one. Gay people marry for the same reasons straight people do — to express their love and to declare their commitment before friends and family.”

How are incestuous couples excluded from his above description, again? How are they different?

See, this here is a Stage One Thinker, and his position on same sex marriage just caught up with him.

So a brother and sister living together can’t get federal marriage benefits and health care benefits at work because of some Medieval code of morality!?!?!

Two adults who love each other and want to share a life together are somehow less in love than two gay people?

Why all the hate, incestaphobes!

mankai on October 4, 2013 at 2:59 PM

It doesn’t even have to be about love.

What if the siblings have an ailing parent and one stays home to care for the parent and the other one works. Essentially they mirror a husband and wife with a dependent. If gay marriages are “equal before the law” why not these people in a family?

If we are talking about ADULT Brother & ADULT Sister, the analogy is dead-on. If one is going to permit gay marriage licenses, there is no government interest in discriminating between consenting adults, even when it involves incest.

Sorry, Ed, this where this thing is headed. You may gafaww and say “oh c’mon”, but Justice Kennedy’s logic would not permit preventing adult incest.

Not a damn thing wrong with pointing it out.

That’s why the Rule of Law means demands Justices who will eventually overturn the decision of U.S. vs Windsor, or this WILL be the result.

Stop falling into the liberal trap. Gay marriage is legal in all 50 states. Name one instance of a gay couple being arrested/fined for getting married.

This is abotu the government RECOGNIZING gay marriage.

DethMetalCookieMonst on October 4, 2013 at 2:56 PM

That is why it drives me batty when someone quotes the Loving decision. THe Lovings actually were going to get arrested for getting married, and they were going to get banned from the state. Not to mention the fact, that Mildred was pregnant which had a lot to do with the court’s decision that “marriage” was a fundamental right.

Shocking and insensitive comments? Well, why can’t brothers and sisters marry if they really love each other. They deserve to get the benefits just as much as SS couples. Why is the law against this when it seems to be leading that way once the door is opened. Why are gays against true love? This is what happens when we are lead down these roads of anything goes.

But if you want to play games comparing homosexuality to incest, at least homosexual couples aren’t risking the conception of genetically mutated freak children with birth defects.

DRayRaven on October 4, 2013 at 3:06 PM

First generation incest has very little chance of producing “mutated” freaks.. Your playing games with subjective morality. You are judging incestuous couples with your standard of morality; absolutely NO DIFFERENT than say someone on this board who judges someone who is homosexual.

Well, and why does the relationship have to even be about sex. My divorced sister is living with my mother pooling their money raising my niece. Why can’t they form a partnership or a marriage?

melle1228 on October 4, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Yep. That’s what happens when you being to fundamentally redefine “marriage”. It becomes subjective to the individual. The consequence of having weak (or biased) minds setting social policy. Good to see someone is catching onto the scam.

And as anyone who’s married can attest, marriage has nothing to do with sex. ;)

I think that that the incest analogy is quite good, especially when you claim that morality is subjective to the person and the society.

melle1228 on October 4, 2013 at 2:48 PM

I agree. What if the brother and sister are adopted and not blood relatives? It is the “nature” of the brother/sister relationship that many would see morally wrong. Why the outrage at Woody Allen and his adopted step-daughter?

Remember that if the Windsors were sisters or a sister and brother – they wouldn’t have been able to get married and would have to pay estate taxes. Some equal protection!

The problem is that the marriage ideal is what gays have used to prove that they are just as “normal” and the same as everyone else. They didn’t realize that by redefining it through the law; they redefined it for everyone. When you start shifting taboos; you shift everyone. Gays wanted to be able to says “we aren’t taboo, we are the norm, but don’t change anything else.” That isn’t how the world works.

But if you want to play games comparing homosexuality to incest, at least homosexual couples aren’t risking the conception of genetically mutated freak children with birth defects.

DRayRaven on October 4, 2013 at 3:06 PM

That’s their choice!!!

Now having genetically diverse children is a requirement for marriage? Next we’ll be telling blacks not to marry because of the increased risk for sickle cell?!?!?! Racists. What’s next, segregated schools?

there is nothing wrong with what corbett said. in fact, i’m glad he said it- because watching gay marriage activists say intolerant things is soooo deliciously ironic. =) after all, if they are insulted by being equated to incestuous couples, it shows that they don’t feel very tolerant of incest. the hypocrisy is pretty funny!

But marriage doesn’t have anything to do with reproduction anymore so you can’t use that as an argument.

gwelf on October 4, 2013 at 3:07 PM

thebrokenrattle on October 4, 2013 at 3:10 PM

melle1228 on October 4, 2013 at 3:10 PM

Excuse me, are you mistaking me for a gay marriage supporter?

I don’t have to be a gay rights activist to note that what Corbett said was a stupid thing to say, especially if you’re a crummy governor running for re-election in a purple state.

If you want to exhibit a border-line obsessive need to argue about gay marriage with someone (not to mention your HUGE leaps and assumptions about what someone believes based on 2 or 3 sentences that do not say what you think they say), find someone who actually said have a ‘right’ to get married.

As for me, I don’t think government has any business treating married and unmarried people differently in the first place. IMO, marriage is strictly religious. If people want to hook up, split up, and then argue about who owns what, that’s a civil matter.

my sister have been caring for our mother for the last 3 years..
she has just passed and now god is caring for her..
20 years ago that same sister and i cared for our grandmother for 4 1/2 years..
we never asked for a dime from anyone for anything…
we never tried to be a married couple nor wite off mom as a
dependant….we did what was needed to be done…

I’ve argued this many times before. One of the many reason conservatism has so few legislative victories (and simply occasionally stopping some new monstrosity is not really a “victory” – actually rolling back gov’t would be a victory) is that few politicians, despite what they claim, are philosophically conservative. They haven’t thought about the philosophy, the principals, the ideals. They simply chose a side and say what they think their voters want to hear.

That leads us to Governor Corbett – much like Mitt Romney was never able to comfortably explain, defend or advocate conservative ideas, Gov. Corbett has no idea what the philosophical arguments are against gay marriage and therefore just spouts off nonsense.

Now – by saying this I’m not saying that Corbett is not right-leaning, or has been a bad governor (I don’t know), but that he, like the vast majority of politicians, is not truly conservative.

Very, very, very few GOP elected officials or candidates actually understand or are knowledgeable about conservatism. They know only “the base doesn’t like taxes and wants less gov’t”. They have no understanding of the reason we want less gov’t or the reason we believe lower taxes are better for everyone (including the poor).

And, as I’ve argued on other threads, the GOP establishment (the campaign professionals, the fundraisers, the press spokespeople, the organizers, advisers, and the talking heads) also have very few people among them that understand conservatism outside of the above shallow understanding.

Which is why these people are constantly saying stupid things that either a) upset the base or b) don’t express conservative thought and is simply stupid (as the case here) and thus can be used to hammer conservatives/republicans.

For instance, does anyone believe that Boehner is philosophically opposed to Obamacare? That he understands why conservatives think it will make healthcare both worse and more expensive? I doubt very much that he cares very much about Obamacare. I’m sure, if the GOP base didn’t give him trouble, he’d be fine letting it take effect. And I’m just as sure that he has little understanding of why we are so opposed.

And, it is because of that lack of understanding why the GOP constantly thinks it can just give conservatives a little “show” and then get on with whatever they want to do (such as leave Obamacare alone or simply raise the debt ceiling again).

On that last comment, I have a question. Why have a debt ceiling law at all if we just raise it every time we run up against it? What is the point of the debt ceiling exactly? It’s as if your credit card company just upped your limit every time you went over your limit – regardless of your ability to repay.

The problem is that the marriage ideal is what gays have used to prove that they are just as “normal” and the same as everyone else. They didn’t realize that by redefining it through the law; they redefined it for everyone. When you start shifting taboos; you shift everyone. Gays wanted to be able to says “we aren’t taboo, we are the norm, but don’t change anything else.” That isn’t how the world works.

melle1228 on October 4, 2013 at 3:15 PM

And BINGO was his name-o.

It’s like protecting only “blacks” from discrimination, and not whites, Hispanics, Eskimos, etc., etc. It’s “RACE” that’s a protected class, NOT “BLACKS” as a protected class.

Apply to “sexual orientation” as a protected class – gays want that protection, and ignore or deny that that will, logically and legally, include all other sexual orientations. Pedo, bestiality, etc. It’s all coming along to sit at the grown-ups table, like it or not. ESPECIALLY if you justify it with “equal protection”.

I don’t have to be a gay rights activist to note that what Corbett said was a stupid thing to say, especially if you’re a crummy governor running for re-election in a purple state.

If you want to exhibit a border-line obsessive need to argue about gay marriage with someone (not to mention your HUGE leaps and assumptions about what someone believes based on 2 or 3 sentences that do not say what you think they say), find someone who actually said have a ‘right’ to get married.

As for me, I don’t think government has any business treating married and unmarried people differently in the first place. IMO, marriage is strictly religious. If people want to hook up, split up, and then argue about who owns what, that’s a civil matter.

DRayRaven on October 4, 2013 at 3:21 PM

I didn’t take you for a gay marriage supporter – sorry if I implied that, not that there’s anything wrong with that =)

I was just quickly noting that this is where the debate has lead us.

I agree with you that this was not a politically smart thing to do but I don’t think it’s as destructive as Akin’s “rape abortion” comments (not that you said it was). Almost any answer to the question of “gay marriage” is bound to get a conservative in trouble with the media and the perpetually outraged gay mafia who will turn anything said into “hate”.

If you want to exhibit a border-line obsessive need to argue about gay marriage with someone (not to mention your HUGE leaps and assumptions about what someone believes based on 2 or 3 sentences that do not say what you think they say), find someone who actually said have a ‘right’ to get married.

I just asked you why you thought what he said was stupid in which you spouted some unscientific crap about incestuous couples having mutated freak babies.

As for me, I don’t think government has any business treating married and unmarried people differently in the first place. IMO, marriage is strictly religious. If people want to hook up, split up, and then argue about who owns what, that’s a civil matter.

DRayRaven on October 4, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Yeah, pretty much my position with the exception that I do think that the state needs to recognize the biologically procreating couples. I think the state needs to find someway to automatically have someone on the hook for their kids and give them rights to their children if they are making an honest commitment to the kid’s mother. In family court, the only thing you CAN’T waive and the only thing that isn’t considered contractual is matters pertaining to the children.

my sister have been caring for our mother for the last 3 years..
she has just passed and now god is caring for her..
20 years ago that same sister and i cared for our grandmother for 4 1/2 years..
we never asked for a dime from anyone for anything…
we never tried to be a married couple nor wite off mom as a
dependant….we did what was needed to be done…

What if the siblings have an ailing parent and one stays home to care for the parent and the other one works. Essentially they mirror a husband and wife with a dependent. If gay marriages are “equal before the law” why not these people in a family?

gwelf on October 4, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Last I checked a brother, sister and parents are family.

I guess you are asking why they don’t get marriage/dependent tax breaks.

But, if you are caring for a parent, you can claim them as a dependent, so that is already taken care of. All we are left with is whether they can file taxes as a married couple.

But, all snark aside, your point is valid. Basically, if the new definition of marriage is “people who love each other” why is it limited to just 2 people? Why are close relatives not allowed to marry?

People like to poo-poo slippery slope arguments, but slipper slope arguments almost always come true eventually. the reality is you can see what will come next. It won’t happen immediately, it will start 10 years or so and people will start agitating for polygamy, etc.

And, the reality is, once there is same-sex marriage, the rationale for not allowing polygamy is gone.

The problem is that the marriage ideal is what gays have used to prove that they are just as “normal” and the same as everyone else. They didn’t realize that by redefining it through the law; they redefined it for everyone. When you start shifting taboos; you shift everyone. Gays wanted to be able to says “we aren’t taboo, we are the norm, but don’t change anything else.” That isn’t how the world works.

melle1228 on October 4, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Yup.

The gay marriage proponents were after two things – access to government benefits for the purpose of the benefits themselves as well as locking the power of the state into demanding society treat them like the state does for other “minorities”.

Just to give you an idea of the way things are in PA right now, I hear ads pretty regularly on the radio now featuring same-sex couples. They are advertising invitro services, family planning, healthcare, etc. These couples have become a target market for businesses, so you may conclude the battle has been fought and we have lost. Once capitalism gets involved it’s all over, the politicians fold.

Corbett isn’t popular here and is going to lose, even if the rampant fraud in Philadelphia didn’t exist.

I just asked you why you thought what he said was stupid in which you spouted some unscientific crap about incestuous couples having mutated freak babies.

melle1228 on October 4, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Sorry if I overreacted and pulled you in without justification. I sensed a pile-on commencing.

Babies of incest are not necessarily going to have birth defects, but it is certainly more likely. Children of first cousins are twice as likely to have birth defects, and it is even more likely for children of closer relatives (like mother/son or father/daughter) – and even risk premature death.

thank you…my point was…we never tried to get the government to do anything for us…gay marrage isnt about adam and steve living together forever…gay ppl have lived together since forever and not one has ever been arrested or fined or stoned in the streets fo it….its about the money….when adam dies ..steve wants his money …and he doesnt want to pay the single payer rates…steve wants adams retirement money…steve wants adams life insurance money…and on and on…the side benefit for the movement is that they get to stick their finger in the eyes of ppl with faith…
this has never been about love and forever….its about cash..

Sorry if I overreacted and pulled you in without justification. I sensed a pile-on commencing.

No problem.

Babies of incest are not necessarily going to have birth defects, but it is certainly more likely. Children of first cousins are twice as likely to have birth defects, and it is even more likely for children of closer relatives (like mother/son or father/daughter) – and even risk premature death.

DRayRaven on October 4, 2013 at 3:35 PM

The problem is that we have “constitutionalized” procreation and marriage so much that I am not to sure that the state has a viable justification to regulate this anymore.

I agree with you on marriage though. I believe the state has damaged marriage far more than it actually has helped it. If we could have a happy medium of automatically giving bio fathers rights who are committing to the mothers of their children and leave marriage in religious hand; I am all for the state out of marriage.

Don’t expect that argument to win too many debates with the activists, but at least it’s a better political argument to make than relating same-sex marriage to incest — a lesson social conservatives should have learned years ago.

Incest is more subversive than polygamy which is why the analogy bothers people, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t any less on-the-nose. The point is, there are plenty of restrictions on who can whom, not just those based on gender. Gays like to act as if the male/female definition of marriage is discriminatory, but affirmatively defining marriage as one thing, and not two or three other things, means other people who probably can’t help whom they fall in love with either cannot marry the way they wish. People act like two men and two women are similar enough to a man and woman that there should be no distinctions made, but these other analogies show that logic to be flawed.

Corbett should have looked that interviewer directly in the eye and said something along the lines of…….

As a member of the media and long-time advocate of the liberal agenda I’m not surprised that you’d want to focus on gay marriage. The Supreme Court left it up to the states to determine under their laws as to what is and isn’t a marriage. The federal court shouldn’t even be involved in this. But if they say they are, then they’re going to make a determination whether the state has the right to determine that a marriage is only between a man and a woman and not between two individuals of the same sex. What’s next on your agenda?

In other words, call out the media critters for the liberal echo chambers they are. It is really a matter of honesty in reporting by making it clear that the interviewer isn’t fair or unbiased.

Babies of incest are not necessarily going to have birth defects, but it is certainly more likely. Children of first cousins are twice as likely to have birth defects, and it is even more likely for children of closer relatives (like mother/son or father/daughter) – and even risk premature death.

DRayRaven on October 4, 2013 at 3:35 PM

Yeah, it’s not as AIDS causes “premature death” or costs taxpayers very much to treat.

“Gay people marry for the same reasons straight people do — to express their love and to declare their commitment before friends and family.”

And of course, an incestuous marriage, brother/sister relationship, would *never* argue that they marry ‘for the same reasons everyone else does – to express their love and to declare their commitment before friends and family’, right?

The argument for same-sex “marriage” is exactly the same as the one for incest: “if they love each other it’s OK and they should have marriage equality.”

whatcat on October 4, 2013 at 2:47 PM

Pretty much.

“Marriage equality” should mean brother and sister should be allowed to marry and polygamous marriages should be legal.

Why should homosexuals get preferential treatment?

sentinelrules on October 4, 2013 at 2:50 PM

I agree with both of you.

Point is the liberal press did not like the him saying gays were not allowed to marry just like 12 year olds. So he comes up with another example of brother and sister. Point is he was just arguing the state had the right to make rules about who could marry who. He was not saying it was the same.

But as you two point out is really is the same thing. Two people that love each other are not allowed to marry because of State Law.

Marriage for 6000 years has had the same meaning one man one woman. For gays to want to change that is outrageous. There is nothing more established in law than the fact marriage is one man to one woman.

Don’t forget that–accomplishments or lack of accomplishments aside–they demand that the sexual identity of gays and lesbians be gratuitously highlighted in all textbooks. They also insist that they be allowed to enter parades that have nothing to do with sexual identify, politics, or current events so that they can identify themselves as gays and lesbians. Gays and lesbians need to grow up and stop being so self-absorbed.